bookwyrmfandomcom-20200213-history
Forum:Application processes for staff
According to the 'Phases notion,' once we get users we'll open up a forum for applying to be rollback. What kind of criteria should there be? Ryll Shados 21:57, August 15, 2012 (UTC) Rather quiet..... Most wikis, rollback is the most simple and basic of staff positions to apply for. Lets start there. Ryll Shados 19:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC) I would say quality useful MAINSPACE edits. Also someone that does not edit/comment to 'pad their edit count', I am not worried about the number of edits but what is being edited...contribs should def be something that is reviewed by current staff before making the decision to promote. Since Rollbacks are called Watchers here, rollbacks should remember that...we watch and protect (if needed) those pages from trolls or spam. --Phynix05 12:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC) Hmmm... question. Most wikis go by, rollback is precursor to admin. So logically, in order to be given rollback they should need to show qualities and personality that would work with the rest of the team/ work potentially as admin in the future, correct? And agree with the edit padding: no wikicats in the library, thank you.Ryll Shados 13:31, September 12, 2012 (UTC) Sure I guess that is a logical step but not a necessary one (moving up to admin). The same thing you want from your admins you should want from your rollbacks. But whether you are a rollback or regular user you can still apply for admin. And to be honest, this wiki is still to small to have a host of those on Rollback status. Most users can revert a malicious edit...and/or correct a problem without the use of rollback. So, what do YOU want, oh great bookwyrm, from your staff? :P Phynix05 14:00, September 12, 2012 (UTC) Less cheek, perhaps? :p Honest individuals who have a solid edit history, are able to work with others as a team, will NOT try to force their opinion on others or use their station as a means of wining an argument. I want to hammer out solid rules for each position, but I hesitate to dictate rules by myself, or lock it to me and Halo, or even whoever is in chat when I randomly decide to write them. There's not enough people on this wiki to even be able to consider circumventing open conversation. I agree, there isn't necessarily a linear progression from one staff position to another; if there is merit, a chat mod can become bcrat or a normal user could become admin. I believe most of them will be rollback before admin, but merit is the most important factor, I agree. Ryll Shados 15:54, September 12, 2012 (UTC) I happen to agree--honest individuals with a solid edit history...able to work with others as a team, etc...I do not think you are dictating, but it might be a good place to start. *Honest individuals who have a solid edit history (mainspace edits) *Able to work with others in a team environment *Will not use their title as a means of wining a argument (or pushing their opinion?) and so it begins... Phynix05 16:15, September 12, 2012 (UTC) How about a minimum span of time editing? Say, two months on the wiki (open to other times)? If necessary a mainspace edit count could be added later, but for now I think not. Open to self nomination and user nomination, but requiring review by a team of admins/bcrats (three I think); user input is encouraged and accepted on character. Denied applicants may not apply again for a full month minimum; any attempts at hurring the process or applying early will reset the timer, plus some (drawing blank on time). Edits of quality: substantial additions to mainspace articles, not fixing spelling or punctuation alone. (my thoughts: rollback is there to fight against vandalism, therefore they need to have worked with and be familiar with the articles they are watching over). Ryll Shados 01:45, September 13, 2012 (UTC) Do chat mods need the same requirement of having main space edits? I think that we could change the requirement from needing substantial mainspace edit to something that looks more into how often they are in chat, since mainspace edits aren't needed for a chat mod, but chatting is. Argyos Maestre 03:07, September 13, 2012 (UTC) I don't see a huge amount of logic in giving someone chat mod based on edits, no. We can certainly start that thread: I know as far as I'm concerned, chat mods need to be mature and very friendly, but they cannot be afraid to use their authority to stop a fight or take care of a troll; the entire decision is based on personality and maturity, really. And the only way to know that stuff is if they are in often. One theory that had been discussed earlier was forming a 'council' of five users or so: three chat mods, one normal highly trusted frequent chatter, and the last person would be either the chat admin or another person that the other four would choose. That group of five would review any nominations based on past behavior, current relationship with the chat room, and overall maturity level (which they might use edits to assess as well). The council would be elected by the chat mods every three months. Now granted, this notion only works with a very full chat requiring that many mods, but I wasn't planning on setting up anything for chat mod until after the community has expanded quite a bit. For now, the user's character and personality has to be approved by the entirety of staff, from crat through mod; any objections, and the nomination fails. Any tweaks? Ryll Shados 09:53, September 13, 2012 (UTC)